Misek-Falkoff v. Donovan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Misek-Falkoff v. Donovan

250 A.D.2d 579, 671 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4908

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 579 (Misek-Falkoff v. Donovan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Misek-Falkoff v. Donovan, 250 A.D.2d 579, 671 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Roberto, J.), dated April 1,1997, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied her cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment in her favor.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Judges and those who perform similar functions, such as Hearing Examiners, “ ‘ “are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly” ’ ” (Colin v County of Suffolk, 181 AD2d 653, 654, quoting Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349, 356). The plaintiff has failed to proffer evidence demonstrating that the defendant performed any acts in the “ ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction’ ” (Stump v Sparkman, supra, at 357). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Roberto, J.), dated April 1,1997, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied her cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment in her favor.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Judges and those who perform similar functions, such as Hearing Examiners, “ ‘ “are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly” ’ ” (Colin v County of Suffolk, 181 AD2d 653, 654, quoting Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349, 356). The plaintiff has failed to proffer evidence demonstrating that the defendant performed any acts in the “ ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction’ ” (Stump v Sparkman, supra, at 357). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 579, 671 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/misek-falkoff-v-donovan-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack